The redistricting that occurred after the 2000 census, as required to reflect the population’s changes, was the first nationwide redistricting to apply the results of Shaw v. Reno. Representatives as delegates, trustees, and politicos. The Court found that if a redistricting map is "so bizarre on its face that it is 'unexplainable on grounds other than race'," that a claim for relief under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is available to plaintiffs. That opinion led some commentators and advocates to fear a reversal of the gains in minority representation that had been made through enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. Divided government and gridlock in the United States. Race Law Stories (Foundation Press 2008), Ohio State Public Law Working Paper No. Other articles where Shaw v. Reno is discussed: gerrymandering: ” In Shaw v. Reno (1993), the Court ruled that electoral districts whose boundaries cannot be explained except on the basis of race can be challenged as potential violations of the equal protection clause, and in Miller v. Johnson (1995) it held that the equal protection clause… Shaw v. Reno (1993) Jurisdiction, 14th Amendment/Equal Shaw v. Reno (1993) Does the North Carolina residents’ claim that the 1990 redistricting plan discriminated on the basis of race raise a valid constitutional issue under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause? But the story does not end there. Shaw v. Reno Shaw v. Reno (1993) AND ITS PROGENY United States Constitution. If the Roberts Court is as ambivalent in its conception of meaningful representation as the Rehnquist Court, this story will remain incomplete - and Shaw's legacy will remain vigorously contested. On the other hand, bodies doing redistricting must be conscious of race to the extent that they must ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, This page was last edited on 21 September 2020, at 11:42. Even after formal barriers to participation were eliminated in the 1960s and 1970s, relatively few African Americans were elected to Congress from southern states. Shaw v. Reno - When Has A State Gone Too Far? This plan was subsequently rejected by the U.S. attorney general due to the lack of minority voting representation. Drawing on the papers of the late Justice Harry Blackmun, the chapter examines the Supreme Court's internal deliberations over the case, as well as the still-unresolved tension between race-blind and race-conscious redistricting evident in its final opinion. Actions subject to this standard must satisfy three conditions: a compelling government interest, narrowly tailored to achieve that goal, and the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.

In the fall of 1991, a reapportionment plan was submitted for the state of North Carolina that only included one black minority district. The case involved the redistricting of North Carolina after the 1990 census. Shaw v. Reno (1993) This is the currently selected item.

Keywords: Shaw, Reno, elections, election law, redistricting, Voting Rights Act, VRA, Section 5, DOJ, Justice Department, JEL Classification: D63, D72, J15, K40, K49, Suggested Citation: Shaw v. Reno (1993) AP.GOPO: CON‑3.C.1 (EK) Google Classroom Facebook Twitter.

Suggested Citation, Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series, Subscribe to this free journal for more curated articles on this topic, Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic, Law & Society: Public Law - Constitutional Law eJournal, Law & Society: Private Law - Discrimination Law eJournal, We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content.By continuing, you agree to the use of cookies. Ohio State Public Law Working Paper No. All Rights Reserved of Okla. Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. To learn more, visit our Cookies page. In order to remedy this, a revised plan was submitted that included a second majority-minority district of an unusual shape. Before enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, blacks were largely prevented from voting or even registering throughout the South. In the fall of 1991, a reapportionment plan was submitted for the state of North Carolina that only included one black minority district. In Shaw v. Reno, the United States Supreme Court imported the qualified colorblindness principle from its affirmative action cases, allowing white North Carolinians to challenge majority-black districts created under pressure from the U.S. Department of Justice. Facts of the Case: James P. Wesberry, Jr. filed a suit against the governor of Georgia claiming that the Fifth Congressional District, or which he was a part of, was 2 to 3 times times larger than some of the other districts in the state and therefore, diluted his right to vote compared to other Georgia residents. Congressional behavior.

Law Library - American Law and Legal Information, Notable Trials and Court Cases - 1989 to 1994, Shaw v. Reno - Case Background, When Has A State Gone Too Far?, Dissension, Impact, Related Cases. This plan was subsequently rejected by the U.S. attorney general due to the lack of minority voting representation. No contact information is available for Daniel P. Tokaji, This page was processed by aws-apollo5 in. Subsequent decisions on similar issues have made use of Shaw and refined it, though the four dissenters have held fast in their belief that no cause of action exists. 2d 511, 1993 U.S. Brief Fact Summary. Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1989 to 1994Shaw v. Reno - Case Background, When Has A State Gone Too Far?, Dissension, Impact, Related Cases, Copyright © 2020 Web Solutions LLC. A federal District Court dismissed a lawsuit by some North Carolina voters on the grounds that they had no claim for relief under a standard set by a previous Supreme Court case, United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh v. Carey. The new district was at times no wider than a two-lane highway and ran along Interstate 85 for about 160 miles. The state revised its map and submitted a new plan, this one with two majority-minority districts.

Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering. North Carolina submitted to the Department of Justice a map with one majority-minority black district—that is, a district with a black majority. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was made. For instance, Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995), which concerned a similarly irregular district in Georgia, was also decided 5-4, with the majority comprising exactly the same five justices as in Shaw. and its Licensors

The Department of Justice believed that the state could have drawn another such majority-minority district in order to improve representation of black voters rather than including them all within one district. Gerrymandering. In Shaw v. Reno, the United States Supreme Court imported the qualified colorblindness principle from its affirmative action cases, allowing white North Carolinians to challenge majority-black districts created under pressure from the U.S. Department of Justice. Tokaji, Daniel P., The Story of Shaw v. Reno: Representation and Raceblindness (2008). This chapter in the forthcoming Race Law Stories volume tells the story behind the Shaw case.

That changed in the 1990s, partly due to the Justice Department's exercise of its preclearance power under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Shaw v. Reno Case Background. This rearrangement of district lines to produce a change in the voting majority of a certain area is called a "gerrymander." Congressional behavior: lesson overview . Learn how and when to remove this template message, Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, North Carolina's 2nd congressional district, List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 509, "Race and Redistricting: Drawing Constitutional Lines after, "Black Americans in Congress: George Henry White", City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of New England.

The Justice Department's efforts to increase safe minority seats led to the litigation in North Carolina and, eventually, to the Shaw v. Reno opinion.

She described the shape of the new district as "bizarre" and said such a district "bears an uncomfortable resemblance to political apartheid." Shaw v. Reno [Shaw I] Citation509 U.S. 630, 113 S. Ct. 2816, 125 L. Ed. Sipuel v. Board of Regents of Univ. Terms of Use. Email. 1, National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System, United States congressional apportionment, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaw_v._Reno&oldid=979553972, United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court, United States electoral redistricting case law, Congressional districts of North Carolina, African-American history of North Carolina, Articles needing additional references from February 2008, All articles needing additional references, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. This chapter in the forthcoming Race Law Stories volume tells the story behind the Shaw case. 53, Posted: 12 Apr 2006 53, Available at SSRN: If you need immediate assistance, call 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 212 448 2500 outside of the United States, 8:30AM to 6:00PM U.S. Eastern, Monday - Friday. Because this new district consisted of such an unusual shape so that it deliberately encompassed areas with higher black populations, these residents believed that the state may have violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community, Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee. Redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause while bodies doing redistricting must be conscious of race to the extent that they must ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act. North Carolina's 1990s redistricting plans resulted in three more trips to the Supreme Court and a voting rights jurisprudence that can best be described as muddled. The case was heard by a three-judge district court, who ruled that the residents did not prove an unconstitutional equal protection claim. The proposed 12th district was 160 miles (260 km) long, winding through the state to connect various areas having in common only a large black population.

Such redistricting will be held unconstitutional if it is found to be intended to segregate voters by race and this segregation cannot be justified under a standard of strict scrutiny. The chapter starts by reviewing the history of racial politics in North Carolina and other southern states, a critical part of Shaw's story, though one almost entirely omitted from the Supreme Court's opinion. Thus, like so many stories in the area of race law, the story of Shaw v. Reno does not have an ending. Last revised: 10 Dec 2019. The uncertain status of Shaw's legacy is compounded the changing composition of the Court, marked by the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist and the retirement of Justice O'Connor, the swing vote in the Shaw and key voting rights cases that followed.